V.A.JALEEL v. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.38395 of 2010-------------------------------------------Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010J U D G M E N T----------------------Aggrieved by Ext.P1 to P3 orders of assessment, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2ndrespondent, as evidenced from Ext.P4, P4(a) & P4(b). Alongwith the appeals the petitioner had also filed stay petitionsas evidenced from Ext.P5, P5(a) and P5(b). It is submittedthat the appeals as well as the stay petitions are pendingconsideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that without consideringpendency of the appeals, coercive steps of recovery has nowbeen initiated on issuing Ext.P6, P6(a) and P6(b) demandnotices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
Considering pendency of the statutory appeals, Iam of the view that the writ petition can be disposed ofdirecting the appellate authority to expedite the matter.
The 2nd respondent is directed to consider andpass orders on Ext.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) stay petitions afteraffording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as W.P.(C).38395/10-Y-2-early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondentas directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext. P1 to Ext.P3, which is now initiated pursuant to Ext. P6, P6(a) and P6(b) demand notices, shall be kept in abeyance.
The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgmentbefore the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.okb
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 23 Dec 2010. The bench was C K ABDUL REHIM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.